Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why are U.S. citizens ignoring the 6% gain on GDP, by not nationalizing health care?

Statistics show that the average U.S. citizen pays considerably more for their, --- bankruptcy creating inhumane medical system, --- than other countries who have nationalized health care. The gain in GDP is around 3%.

It follows economies of scale gains are likely to be about 3%. If a penny saved is a penny earned, I am justified in saying that there would be a 6% saving to the average U.S. citizen.

Why are Americans wasting such a huge amount of gains, when going single payer could bring such a huge gain to each American?

I ask all my Yankee friends; what the hell? Recognize that single payer, pays great dividends.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/)

Regards
DL

[Gunny]

Click on the wrong board, did you? You're looking for support for Unconstitutional Fascist Care on THIS one? You're a hoot.:cuckoo:

[darin]

Couple of issues.

First - morality. For a government to compel purchase of a product flies in the face of liberty. it's immoral. Another moral issue with government-sponsored health care: Reduced levels of quality-of-care. Spending more money to ensure better health care is GOOD, unless somebody is "Greedy". Liberals HATE "Greedy" people, right? Another aspect of morality - stealing more of people's income to finance the system. I'm not sure I could do with a 20% cut in my pay to subsidize the care for somebody not attached to me. Then toss in the immorality of reduced access...we can talk about how in canada 30% more patients wait a month or more to see a specialist, as compared to the USA. We also can debate the immorality of wage control. Liberty means the market decides the cost of health care. The market decides how much to pay doctors and staff and drug companies. We can talk about the immoral personal-injury trials and settlements that drive up insurance costs for doctors, who pass that on to their patients.

Secondly - statistics do not tell the whole story. For instance, the 'average' almost NEVER happens, statistically. The figure used without context and contributing factors is misleading - and that is an agenda-driven piece; not something objective...in short, it's not news. It's fake news. Its bias-driven rhetoric.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Couple of issues.

First - morality. For a government to compel purchase of a product flies in the face of liberty. it's immoral. Another moral issue with government-sponsored health care: Reduced levels of quality-of-care. Spending more money to ensure better health care is GOOD, unless somebody is "Greedy". Liberals HATE "Greedy" people, right? Another aspect of morality - stealing more of people's income to finance the system. I'm not sure I could do with a 20% cut in my pay to subsidize the care for somebody not attached to me. Then toss in the immorality of reduced access...we can talk about how in canada 30% more patients wait a month or more to see a specialist, as compared to the USA. We also can debate the immorality of wage control. Liberty means the market decides the cost of health care. The market decides how much to pay doctors and staff and drug companies. We can talk about the immoral personal-injury trials and settlements that drive up insurance costs for doctors, who pass that on to their patients.

Secondly - statistics do not tell the whole story. For instance, the 'average' almost NEVER happens, statistically. The figure used without context and contributing factors is misleading - and that is an agenda-driven piece; not something objective...in short, it's not news. It's fake news. Its bias-driven rhetoric.

Great post dmp...:beer: :beer:

My position from the start has been that-- anything that attempts to present the obamacare scam law as a positive is inherently fake, regardless of what cleverly manipulated reason/figures are used to try to deceive others..
First-- It is anti-liberty, which is immoral, and has far, far, far too many well=known negatives to be good/correct action/right to do.
Secondly, It fails on every so-called positive result it promised.
It was by design a political action with the goal of taking us further away from the Constitution, garner future political vote favoritism for Dem party by giving billions to the usual bought out voters,and those that care only for themselves and the here and now in life(which is nation destroying 101).
All this is obvious truth but gov/media/political propaganda covers so much of it up--again we see that one party that wants this nation reformed on a socialist model, doing its damndest to destroy our Constitutional liberties and cause chaos/turmoil to further their goals.
Its was forced upon us by hook and crook by a party that are now nothing less than brown-shirts in disguise.--Tyr

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Couple of issues.

[QUOTE]First - morality. For a government to compel purchase of a product flies in the face of liberty. it's immoral.

Liberty? You live in an oligarchy and not a democracy so where is your liberty?

Your government already forces you to pay taxes on things you do not want.


Another moral issue with government-sponsored health care: Reduced levels of quality-of-care.

For the richest, perhaps, but I increases the quality of care for the poorest who need it the most.

You seem concerned with morality, which is laudable, but seem to have forgotten that Jesus said that the first thing of good morality should push us to as he said, to look to the poor. You are putting many things above this responsible view.



Spending more money to ensure better health care is GOOD, unless somebody is "Greedy". Liberals HATE "Greedy" people, right?

Are you suggesting that Conservatives love greedy people?



Another aspect of morality - stealing more of people's income to finance the system. I'm not sure I could do with a 20% cut in my pay to subsidize the care for somebody not attached to me.

I showed a saving, not an increase, but you wanted the moral aspect so what should you do if you apply the golden rule to those who will go bankrupt if they get sick. Does your doing unto others end at your front door?



Then toss in the immorality of reduced access...we can talk about how in canada 30% more patients wait a month or more to see a specialist, as compared to the USA.

Sure beats going bankrupt when that specialist finds something.



We also can debate the immorality of wage control. Liberty means the market decides the cost of health care. The market decides how much to pay doctors and staff and drug companies. We can talk about the immoral personal-injury trials and settlements that drive up insurance costs for doctors, who pass that on to their patients.

Better to talk of the immorality of the rich allowing the poor to die from lack of medical care.



Secondly - statistics do not tell the whole story. For instance, the 'average' almost NEVER happens, statistically. The figure used without context and contributing factors is misleading - and that is an agenda-driven piece; not something objective...in short, it's not news. It's fake news. Its bias-driven rhetoric.

Yet you did not get what you think are the right numbers and just deny what I put by attacking the messenger and not the message. So much for your morality.

Regards
DL

[NightTrain]

If your healthcare system is so superior, then why do so many Canadians fly to the USA for medical treatment?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If your healthcare system is so superior, then why do so many Canadians fly to the USA for medical treatment?

For the reverse reason your poor come to ours.

So much for your, send us our poor etc.

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

For the reverse reason your poor come to ours.

So much for your, send us our poor etc.

Regards
DL

Great Gnostic. So, with your brand of thinking. You should enjoy paying for all of American poor families coming to compete with all of you there in Canada?

Based on your LAME words above about 'send us our poor'. You are totally welcome to take on all of the expenses of our POOR coming to your shores, looking for FREEBIES, at YOUR EXPENSE.

[NightTrain]

For the reverse reason your poor come to ours.

So much for your, send us our poor etc.

Regards
DL

Not even once have I heard of a poor American going to Canada to mooch off your health care.

Can you enlighten me?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Not even once have I heard of a poor American going to Canada to mooch off your health care.

Can you enlighten me?

My enlightening most here is doubtful, given the mind set, but if you watch Sicko, it documents actual cases.

Regards
DL

[aboutime]

My enlightening most here is doubtful, given the mind set, but if you watch Sicko, it documents actual cases.

Regards
DL



Gnostic. The Only Capability of ENLIGHTENMENT you have comes from your personal experiences, digging in dumpsters, and garbage cans....Much like the reliable CNN Fake News Fabricators who easily lead the uneducated, and uninformed...LIKE YOU.